Hangin' Chad
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2014
- Messages
- 55
- Reaction score
- 11
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
I can't wait for the polygamy rulings to start. Wonder if the Mormon church will go back to their old ways.
So sick of hearing about this. It isn't even news anymore. I wish every state would just overturn it, stop acting like their state is somehow going to be different and keep their SSM ban, and move this crap along.
I can't wait for the polygamy rulings to start. Wonder if the Mormon church will go back to their old ways.
while id support polygamy as long as it follows the rules of consensual adults thats a totally different issue, theres zero precedence solely from equal rights for gays that loans itself to polygamy.
How is it a 'different issue'. The State can't govern who you marry.....right?
false, if you knew anythign about this issue its a rights issue and if you read any of the rullings you would know that the state cant violate individual rights HUGE difference
that state has many powers where it can govern marriage but those powers end at the infringement of individual rights
An 'individual' wanting to have ten wives is an 'individual'.......no difference......and we will start getting positive polygamy rulings as soon as the SCOTUS finally rules on this issue.
How is it a 'different issue'. The State can't govern who you marry.....right?
im not sure what country you are from but thats not what idividual rights mean in the US on any level what so eve, its 100% different lol
some individual want to rape, murder, be millionaires also that doesnt mean the have the right
thank you for proving you are severely uneducated about this issue and dont understand it.
if you disagree of course simply tell me the precedence that belongs solely to gay rights that will lone itself to polygamy, id love to read it
Let me know when you educated yourself on this issue so you can avoid these mistakes in the future, thanks!
1.)Dude, I'm on your side.
2.) Individual rights is individual rights.
3.) If someone wants to marry a donkey, who am I and the State to stand in their way. You need to be more tolerant and put down the hate.
The state can, since it attaches benefits to marriage. It just can't discriminate. Polygamy has a number of legal complications, such as divorce and custody, that might exclude it under "compelling interest." In any case, i hardly care to embrace mormons latching onto this movement, after they mostly worked against SSM.
How is telling a man who wants to have ten wives not 'discrimination'? Are you saying that SSM doesn't have 'legal complications such as divorce and custody"?
Weird, can you point out where it refers to blacks in the 14th?
and can you explain why it has be referenced in 1000s of cases that doesnt have to do with blacks?
sorry your statement is factually wrong
So.
It has been incorrectly used in 1,000s of cases.
We have had gay marriage in my state for a month now.
God hasn't smited anyone, the earth hasn't opened up and swallowed anyone, and dogs and cats still don't live in peace.
The ONLY purpose of the 14th amendment was to ensure that black Americans would have the same rights across the former Confederate states as they had in the rest of the nation.
Which was why the 14th was passed in conjunction with the 13th & 15th amendments.
Gods timeline isn't ours.
He waited 40 years before punishing Israel for their mistreatment of a neighboring nation (and a king later). See Chronicles regarding this.
Would it surprise you to learn that the word "race" doesn't appear in the 14th amendment?
Doesn't matter.
Are you denying it was passed due to the events of the Civil War and the freeing of black Americans from slavery?
Do you really think it was written and passed because
"We might want to apply it to a presidential election some day or give homosexuals the right to marry"?
It won't be over until it's taken to SCOTUS and they're finally forced to rule on this. It'll be nice to finally see SCOTUS put this nonstop argument away. It'll be great to hear that religion doesn't have a monopoly on the word marriage.
You are right that it is certainly a gay old mob that wants to act as though gay matrimony were the same as matrimony of two sexes. But the gout de jour is irrational and so we will act as though they were the same.
To prove what? That boys banging boys don't get kids? I think you will find that to be true all around. But Girls and boys, that is another story. That is why matrimony worked so well as a social tool. If you set it up, so that they slept in one bed, there was reproduction. If they had to stay together, that gave the kids security of upbringing. As easy as that.
Of course, technology has progressed, so that the social instrument no longer works as well as it did. So it would probably be a good idea to drop it altogether. Dis-involving the state in this would seem a good idea. That would put a now mostly useless public good into the private sector, where it belongs.
PS: That you do not know how legislation works in business was interesting.
Classic misapplication of the 14th Amendment which in no way was related to gay marriage.
Maybe we should pass an amendment overturning the 14th.